For the fic guessing game, how about "star"? :)

"It’s not like we’re missing anything, though. The same stars every night can get boring once you’ve seen what else is out there.”

fanfiction WIP guessing game!!

i just read Against Exercise. i wanted to ask what you make of this sentence and the wider paradigm he gestures at occasionally in the essay:

Upon the desperate materialist gratifications of a hedonic society, commanding immediate comfort and happiness, we engraft the desperate economics of health, and chase a longer span of happinesses deferred, and comforts delayed, by disposing of the better portion of our lives in life preservation.

do we live in a ‘hedonic’ society? and does that framing shape his conclusions on in ur opinion? i have my own thoughts but am interested in yours x

ok i'm glad you asked because i find this sentence and this paradigm very irritating lol. i don't think he's the only left-ish thinker who's acceded to this type of framing (like i've complained about mark fisher pulling a similar move) but with greif there's a particular irksomeness to it because, even in the sentence you've quoted, we can see in the latter half how he contradicts his own idea of a "hedonic society"! if his thesis here is something like "the dominant cultural paradigm encourages instant gratification and hedonism, and the exerciser defies this edict by deferring their happiness and sweating it out at the gym instead" then, like, the obvious question here is, where does the impulse of the exerciser come from? does greif actually think the pursuit of fitness and longevity by physical exertion is some kind of counter-cultural move that reacts against, without acceding to, the demands of a "hedonic society"? if he does then it kind of undercuts the significance of the entire rest of the essay, lmao.

my personal answer here would be—and this is something greif dances around a few times but doesn't ever seem prepared to fully unpack—that the demand to have a fit and 'healthy' and long-lasting body is not at all contradictory to the demand to consume goods, and that this latter is more precisely what is meant by "hedonism" here if we are to use it in any useful sense. i think what greif is actually pointing to is the demand to shape oneself into, simultaneously, a valuable worker and an obedient consumer. in an immediate sense these two goals demand different things (say, 'going for a run' vs 'buying products') but on a more thorough analysis we can easily see how they arise from the same fundamental logic of profit-seeking. body fascism has never been just an aesthetic; what it promises to the state and the corporation is a population that is biologically managed and economically exploitable. i think this is true even in an imperialist economy like the united states that doesn't run primarily on production/export.

i don't know a ton about mark greif biographically but my impression is that he's kind of half-left at best, lol. certainly he's like, curmudgeonly in a way that is sometimes useful to mine (ruthless criticism of all that exists, &c) but i think in this essay and others we can clearly see how easily that attitude can slide into just a vaguely reactionary position when it lacks materialist analysis. like, frankly i think if we lived in a social context that actually had a commitment to ensuring hedonic pleasure that would probably be a better world. it's kind of similar to when lib-left types try to claim that we live in a world that has any serious degree of commitment to "the individual" when what they actually, usually mean is that we've been massified in a way that denies us social connection and material support from one another.

anyway: 'against exercise' was very mind-blowing to me when i first read it and i love to see someone staking out that position seriously; and there are elements of greif's analysis i think can be useful in an actually communist analysis. but i find a lot of cultural criticism (specifically that positions itself as counter-cultural without being explicitly communist) has a risk of just sliding reactionary, and i think this half-baked idea of a "hedonic society" is an example of that happening. curious what you think though!

Wait I'm so confused, how is Glazer saying 'we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the holocaust being hijacked to justify genocide' remotely anti-semitic or in anyway an issue? Why is there letter calling that out (or calling out an out of context fragment of what he said)?

A garden-path sentence is a sentence which appears to say one thing but, upon further attention, actually says something else. These kinds of sentences are often intentionally created to be confusing and make people think, but they can also be unintentional. For example:

The horse raced past the barn fell down.

The first six words would have you think that the intended meaning of the sentence is going to be that a horse (subject) raced (verb) past a barn (object), but that’s not the case! If you don’t get it, think of the sentence as follows:

The horse, which was raced past the barn, fell down.

In Glazer's statement, the sentence "We stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked to justify genocide" is an unintentional garden-path sentence: the first part of the sentence would imply that Glazer is saying, "We stand here as men who refute their Jewishness." Then, it could be inferred, he continues by adding, "[We stand here as men who refute] the Holocaust being hijacked..." and so on.

Technically speaking, this is also a grammatical error (albeit not one that would be easy to parse in verbal communication). The correct punctuation would be as follows:

We stand here as men who refute their Jewishness’ and the Holocaust’s being hijacked to justify genocide.

That is, "the hijacking [of the Holocaust and of our Jewishness]" (object) is what "we refute" (verb). Without those apostrophes to mark the possessive forms, however, what Glazer is literally saying is that he refutes his Jewishness. Glazer claimed this wasn’t his intention; it doesn’t really matter, in my opinion, because the reception of a message determines its efficacy. It was a poorly phrased statement that required his clarifying its intention after (what I consider understandable) backlash from other Jews.

As a final note: the confusion could have easily been avoided entirely were Glazer (or whoever wrote the statement) a better writer. For example:

We stand here as men who refute those who would hijack the Holocaust and our Jewishness in order to justify genocide.

Or:

We stand here as men who refute the action of hijacking the Holocaust or Jewishness in the name of justifying genocide.

Or something else entirely! The point is that it was a confusing statement that could easily be interpreted in multiple contradictory ways; ergo, a bad statement. "I don’t like how people invoke the Holocaust or their own Jewishness in order to justify [insert your preferred cause here]" is a perfectly inoffensive statement, in my opinion, but that’s not what Glazer said, and it’s definitely not how it came across.

Connecting the Dots: The Jailbird Backstory, and Pre/Early-SMP c!Quackity Analysis and Theories

Previously on the c!Quackity canon backstory analysis, we laid the conclusion that he technically has two canon backstories, which may or may not be contradictory or overlapping, depending on interpretation. [AO3] [Tumblr]

Last time, I went into the MCM backstory more, since it had a greater impact on the lore and is generally considered "hard canon" [Video summary here]. This time, however, I'll be looking specifically into the 'Jailbird' backstory, as I call it, AKA the "juvenile detention" one, which is more "soft canon" but has a surprisingly large amount of detail to it—even more than I initially thought when I made my previous post, since I started to dig through more early c!Q VODs to get more information on that initial backstory. 

This post primarily serves as a summary for the information I found regarding the 'Jailbird' backstory, VOD by VOD.

So, everyone, sit back and relax, because I already did the hard work for you over the course of months. Oh, and this post refers to the characters, not content creators (unless specified otherwise).

CW: Child neglect, imprisonment, mental health/PTSD, self-neglect, substance abuse (including by a minor).

[Click here to read this analysis/theory post on AO3]

Background

Quackity claims to have been stuck in juvenile detention, allegedly called "SMP Juvie" [B, 10:50], for a contradictory amount of time: 10 years [A, 1:35:20], 41 years [A, 1:36:40], or 43 years [A, 1:46:25], all claims in the same livestream. 

However, the "41 years" one was claimed just after Tubbo said he lost ~41 levels of XP during Tommy's 'test-mugging' for the Cartel about 6 minutes previously, so I don't know if that claim is to be taken seriously or not; besides, tapping into the Duck theory, 41-43 'duck years' is about 10 'human years' anyway, so we're sticking with the "10 years" claim for this analysis. 

Since we know c!Quackity is similar in age to cc!Quackity through various livestreams in Season 1, it's safe to assume that he's ~19 as of Season 1, and ~9 when he got sentenced.

The reasons behind his imprisonment have never been explicitly stated. When asking Dream to whitelist Q onto the SMP, Tommy claims this reason was because Q got into "fun juvie" for "having too much fun" [C, 0:43], but it's not confirmed whether this is a cover story for a more serious crime, a metaphorically true reason, or a complete lie in that Tommy doesn't know the 'crime' either. Some of the theories for how Q ended up there have varied, but are not confirmed in any way to be canon:

Drug-related offenses: Posited by @lasnevadaslaborunion. In one livestream, Q claimed to have "got off that shit years ago" in response to Karl giving him 'heroin' without him knowing. [E, 4:25] This "years ago" is non-specific, so it might go back a decade… and fair enough, in some countries, possession of hard drugs like heroin can land some pretty hefty prison sentences. Whatever way it goes, it still implies exposure to hard drugs as a child… yikes. (Note: This is not my personal theory on how the heroin thing happened. See below for that.)

Misadventures in other video games (e.g. Roblox, Club Penguin Island, etc.): This one is a little meta, but before his MC-related content, including the DSMP, cc!Quackity was quite infamous for raiding various video games, to the point he's part of the Trope Pantheon as an ambiguous-ranking 'deity' of the Internet Counterattack trope (yes, really). It's possible that his character counterpart did something similar at a young age… and ended up behind bars. It probably helps justify and give context to the 'imprisoned for "having too much fun"' excuse Tommy gave, as stated above. And Toontown-affiliated backstories would fit right into this category, regardless of what he did — the game's villains are fun-haters, after all.

A Disclaimer on Realism

Now, here's a little question before we dive deeper: can 9-year-olds be sentenced to juvenile detention in the first place?

The answer depends on where you live. Some countries have a minimum age for children being prosecuted. The US apparently does not, but that's an argument for another day, and one that is unrelated to Minecraft roleplay. My point here is that the aforementioned minimum age is 14 or older in several countries, and even in the US, most convicted juvenile offenders tend to be in their older teenage years. [Source] 

Also, according to many articles I had to look up for this post, many juvenile offenders aren't even sent to jail, they usually have other, less severe sentences, like probation or home confinement or fostering, so the odds of a 9-year-old child ending up in juvie is actually pretty unlikely, realistically speaking, if legal at all.

…And for a sentence of 10 years or more? As stated above, the reason little!Q ended up there at all was never mentioned.

However, since that did happen in soft DSMP canon, I'd have to say… the poor lad would have basically spent most of his childhood incarcerated. I wonder if he still remembers anything about his life before that point canonically.

Environment and Trauma

Even though nothing is actually shown, there's a surprisingly large amount of descriptions of the environment in the juvenile detention centre, for lack of a better term, in the early livestreams.

When Q first joined the SMP, his first remark was on the fresh air, probably because Spawn is still a distance away from the warzone, and that he felt "alive again". [C, 3:13] 

There's also this line: "I didn't have the smile in juvie", likely referring to his now-iconic :] smile. [C, 4:00] Oh, and canonically confirmed PTSD. [D, 16:40]

The interior of the prison itself is unstated, but is implied to be made of grey stone-adjacent blocks, if Q's reaction to setting his spawn in the Courthouse in the Sky is any indication. [D, 22:10] So… I'm speculating its interior either looks like the Cops and Robbers map or… this map cc!Q did in 2019 (minus the escaping), or something like that.

For whatever reason, Q seemed to have claustrophobia, and may or may not have been triggered into a panic attack and a mental breakdown and a half. [C, 11:30]

He claimed to have a lot of allergic reactions, but to what exactly, it was never mentioned. [C, 15:15]

Q might have also tried to escape on at least one occasion. At one point, he offers to show Tommy the "blueprints" for his Cartel plan [A, 1:16:40], but doesn't want others to know about them because they were "a secret where [he comes] from". And then there's this line: "If someone leaks a blueprint… things– all I'm gonna say is things don't go well for those who leak the blueprints, Tommy." Tommy did actually leak the 'blueprint' for a few seconds [A, 1:17:53], but in the context of juvenile detention, as we'll discuss in more detail later on… I'd suppose things wouldn't go well for people who leak prison blueprints, if you choose to interpret the line this way. In the same livestream, he might have tried to break out with a screwdriver, but clearly that didn't work. [A, 1:38:30]

Q recalls apparently breaking his legs like "the second night of juvie" [C, 23:04], most likely from falling, but honestly most of us are concerned how this even happened, and which incompetent nincompoop was running the place to allow children to get injured so easily. So… either the structure of the detention centre violates health and safety regulations, or the 'guards' (for lack of a better word) are shit at their jobs, or both.

In the middle of planning out their heist and preparing to 'test-mug' Tubbo, Q claimed to have been clean from 'drugs' for "30 minutes" at one point. [A, 1:25:40] If this is true, this implies somehow he managed to have access to whatever 'drugs' he was using at that point. This also possibly lines up with the 'heroin' incident mentioned above… which I theorize would be correlated to some other information I found — heroin is "used in the palliative management of bone fractures and other trauma, especially in children" [Wikipedia]. In layman's terms, it basically means heroin is sometimes used as pain relief. I think you might be able to connect the dots from here, but that's just my theory. 

A final note in regards to Q in the early days — he appears to have a tendency of neglecting his personal health, which goes from him joining the DSMP all the way into the Manburg era. He walks around on low health and hunger fairly often, usually as a result of taking damage and never healing up, and even when he doesn't have food on him, he doesn't ask others to give him some so he can regen. [e.g. D, 28:50] Heck, this is how Niki got arrested just after Schlatt's election — she 'hit' Q to snap him out of a breakdown and a half and ended up killing him (non-canonically) because he was on half a heart and insufficient hunger to regen at the time. This tendency is recurring to the point one might even call it a bad habit. I don't know if his past has anything to do with this, but one might argue it is a manifestation of "reckless or self-destructive behavior" under the symptoms of PTSD.

Shared Past with TommyInnit?

Q and Tommy seemed to at least know each other and be friends even before Q's official first appearance, but how exactly is unstated.

In Q's first appearances, Tommy has claimed to only know of him as the best in the Cartel business and teamed up with him, but considering their already amicable relationship even in their 'first' canon conversation, as well as the fact that Tommy gets RL Given Name Privileges with Q [A, 1:32:15], this seems unlikely.

The two had a 'conversation' about having "met in high school". Since it was more likely than not a cover story for the Cartel, its legitimacy is doubted. [A, 1:30:00]

Tommy was apparently the one to get him out of juvenile detention, somehow. [C, 16:05]

Relationship with MCM Backstory

As cited in the previous analysis post, I raised some suspicions that the M!necraft Mondays backstory may have been retconned from the 'Jailbird' backstory as the timelines for the two don't appear to line up. However, I would like to go back and disprove this suspicion, as upon closer examination, the VODs themselves suggest that the two backstories coexist.

On his first livestream on the DSMP, Quackity mentions having met Technoblade before during MCM and claimed that Techno was scared of him (Jack didn't believe that) [D, 48:20]. 

Knowing what actually happened in MCM (links above), it's suggested that Q was highkey projecting his feelings in the moment, which would line up with his later behaviour. 

Canonicity

Also in the previous analysis post, I also raised suspicions that the 'Jailbird' backstory is no longer considered canonical as a result of retcons. However, once again, I would go back and correct that this backstory is soft canon: the 'Jailbird' backstory is closely associated with the concept of the Cartel. The Phantom Membrane Cartel (PMC) was established during Q's second voice-only appearance on the server [B, 7:40], but the plans of the Cartel idea were first laid out the day prior, i.e. during Q's first voice-only appearance, and the PMC was simply a continuation of the initial Cartel plan [B, 3:35]. The PMC itself was later canonized officially as hard canon in Season 3 [F, 44:05]. As a result, the canonicity of the 'Jailbird' backstory is implied to be confirmed by association. 

There are also possible hints towards the canonicity of this backstory in the first Las Nevadas stream. While passing by the minimum/moderate security holding cells on the way to visit Dream, Q makes a joke with Sam, asking if he might ever be put in one of the cells, and then saying "you know how I am" when Sam wasn't amused. [G, 1:00:50] Of course, this can just as easily be referring to Q's jokester nature, but one would wonder.

Oh, and as a bonus, Tiger the cat is implied to be canon too via association, if you interpret it that way. [B, 5:45]

Livestreams/Clips used as sources and references

A. "TommyInnit & Quackity do crimes on Dream's Minecraft Server..." (TommyVODS, 5 August 2020)

B. "TommyInnit & Quackity DO A HEIST on the Dream SMP" (TommyVODS, 6 August 2020)

C. "Quackity joins Dream SMP w/ TommyInnit" (TommyVODS, 11 August 2020)

D. "Quackity Joins The Dream SMP" (QuackityVODS, 17 August 2020)

E. "Karl And Quackity Having Love PROBLEMS! DREAM SMP" (Angry Thomas, 12/13 November 2020) — clipped from a Karl VOD from 12 November 2020

F: "Tommy Leaves Prison with Dream." (TommyVODS, 12 March 2021)

G: "Quackity Visits Dream In Prison" (QuackityVODS, 16 March 2021)

Related posts for reference

This post by @lasnevadaslaborunion, which reminded me to look into Q's backstory even more, and provides the talking point for Source G

This post by @stillnotfivefoot with additions from @marmalade-mir, which kick-started this backstory investigation in the first place

This Legal Beagle article ("What Happens at a Juvenile Detention Center?" by Hilary Ferrand, 5 February 2020) which is really helping me with a fanfic involving this backstory, and as a result, this analysis post.

@lie-lichen replied to your post “honestly a lot of people who espouse death of the...”:

I haven't studied the humanities before, what's a formalist/new critic?

​well i'm definitely more of a lapsed scholar than authority. but formalism is an approach to reading focused on the formal structure of a text, its literary devices, etc. and often is explicitly anti-anything outside the text (author biography, historical context, anything not on the literal page). it's your language arts teacher making you diagram sentences or doing a whole lesson on rhyme schemes.

the New Critics were a group of critics (obvs) who took this approach, concentrated in the beginning of the 20th century. i found them via t.s. eliot's poetics & particularly his landmark criticism "hamlet and his problems," but the mid-century contributions of other critics like Wimsatt & Beardsley's "The Intentional Fallacy" (reconstructing the author based on the text) also shaped criticism to come after. close reading as a standard component of literary education is very much their legacy.

barthes' "death of the author" essay is pop culture famous because it's funny and pithy and has a name that you can read and assume you know what it's about, even if you're going to be wrong in so many of the details. the essay is not concerned with the author as active, present word of god dictating the interpretation of the text after releasing it unto the world; he very clearly states his objection to the idea that "[t]he Author, when believed in, is always conceived of as the past of his own book," a historical origin which produces the text - not an authority figure professing edicts. he actually makes a bunch of jokes about how the new critics were bad, because this is firmly espousing the Birth of the Reader - and so, the birth of reader-response criticism, which i think was a net negative for culture. tbqh.

if you read the damn thing you begin to wonder if this is not one big joke, as well, or at least a very contemporary modern joke as it ends with him claiming that Readers are "without history, biography, psychology; he is simply that someone who holds together in a single field all the traces by which the written text is constituted" - a statement so boldly uninquisitive and contradictory to the level of logic being applied in the paragraphs before that it has to be, in its deliberate obtuseness, a commentary on other commentaries.

so my beef with people whose entire comment can be "Death of the Author!!! QED" is that they think it's a material fact and not a historically-produced and dialectical position in a larger centuries upon centuries long argument about how we read and derive/make/produce/wot ever verb meaning. the petty infighting of critique movements is fun and historically informative i prommy. this is not abt word of god i swear

sensitive subject & long post

***I am aware that surgical lobotomies are usually more severe in results and traumatizing in a diff way than psych malpractice, but at the end of the day— my frontal lobe was damaged by doctors that I had tried to escape from and begged for anyone to get me away from.

I don’t know anything about the woman with the lobotomy tools tattoo, but if she’s the type of crazy or deviant that has to worry about these things, I’d say the tattoo is only a bit insensitive or in bad taste due to how visible it is and anyone seeing it not having context as to why she has it. Otherwise why is it a problem? If I saw that, I would be uncomfortable, wary, and distance myself a bit more than automatically assume she thinks lobotomies are chic. I have no idea what her reason behind the tattoo was or if she’s part of a group that has real and understandable worry about this still in 2023 rather than “reclaiming” the misogyny of the 1900s. It’s a bit contradictory to say that it’s a real concern for multiple groups of people and then assume it’s not for someone else based on appearance alone— and it’s not too uncommon for someone part of a minority group to reclaim symbols, imagery, words, etc that are used as violence against them. It’s really not uncommon for anyone traumatized to reclaim imagery that’s related to their trauma. If someone told me I was jumping on a trend and using psych malpractice as a style and ignored my history with psychiatric abuse or that being a possibility that I maybe don’t want to talk about, I’d be pretty annoyed and hope to God that they have personal experience themselves and aren’t just speaking out of their asses to me from what they read in books or class.

But anyway, the last few sentences of that video are the takeaway people should probably consider more, imo. It’s not about one period in history, it’s not about helping patients, it’s not about anything but doctors and lawmakers playing God and trying to erase people and traits that they deem as too “high risk” or “deviant” for society. Hence targeted minorities being included in discussion who aren’t crazy. Sure, there have been doctors who referred patients for the lobotomy or performed it with good intentions, but grabbing at outliers to derail and ignore the blatant reality of how the USA psych institution works is….not cool but a common way people respond to me anytime I bring up the subject! Because someone has to stand up for the poor, poor psychiatrists!😢

Although the surgery was given a bad reputation and restrictions, do people seriously ignore all of the stories and concerns coming from mostly psychotic or “unpredictable” or “deviant” or “complicated” patients about the cups of medication and TMS/ECT being forced on us as children, teens, people who were unable to consent at the time, or adults given terrifying ultimatums and threats if we hadn’t “consented”? Oh, but believing crazy people is difficult, so how about the stories of kids who were hospitalized by good-intending and concerned parents who then meet their child for visitation hours and realize that something is wrong, and it turns out that their child was given heavy treatment that harmed their wellbeing without guardian knowledge or consent? And how many of those children have a disorder that causes psychosis or disruptive behavior?

All of those treatments, every pill on it’s own or in safe combos, TMS & ECT, and even ABA therapy can be used as a helpful tool in treatment. But they can also be used incorrectly with the same base motive as surgical lobotomies.

I was never the same after my second and third hospitalizations, and no one was surprised except for my new psychiatric nurse to find out a few years later that my frontal lobe had been damaged, most likely from psychotropic medications. He was mortified because he personally knew one of the doctors in my records and referred patients there. He was the first of a small handful of medical professionals that I’ve met who would actually turn their back on another doctor and be horrified and enraged for an LGBT, schizo, complicated, and unpredictable patient. I was 16 years old, and my appointment ended up going past the hours that they were open. Finally, when I had lost hope already, someone stopped typing and looked up at me when I mumbled something shitty about a past doctor. Instead of typing that I was easily agitated, aggressive, or overly pessimistic, he asked me why I called the doctor an explicit word then did what he could in his power to report it.

My psychologist also reported the same doctor 3 years later and I had legal reports filed against him, but I was still forced to be his patient again last year. If you don’t think the system is fucked up when a patient, the patient’s family, the patient’s ex-psychiatric nurse, the patients psychologist, and the patients current psychiatrist all have sent in faxes, emails, and calls to the local hospitals and crisis teams that someone should not be sent to the same hospital again for a long list of reasons that include criminal behavior and neglect…and the patient is still forced back to that hospital, back under that psychiatrist’s care….idek what to say because that sounds like a violation of rights and disregard for a patients wellbeing to me. It was in their system when I got there. The social worker immediately brought up the reports and forms and promised me nothing would go wrong this time. Lmao right. No offer of a different doctor. No offer to find me a bed in a different hospital. Just “I promise”. Because I’m insane, so who cares? They’re doing me a favor and saving my life! 🤩

No one listened to or believed me when I tried to tell them that I wasn’t scared of the pills as poison or anything paranoia related; I was afraid because I felt like I was losing parts of myself and couldn’t voice my thoughts or emotions about it; actually, my ability to speak was damaged enough to have me considered nonverbal for a while, and my movement was moreso uncontrollable spasms— I couldn’t do anything between the episodes of catatonia that was, of course, blamed on my Schizoaffective Diagnosis and seen as a reason to add more medications. I was 13 years old and on so many medications that my parents had to have my school nurse involved to call me out of class and take my midday 2 pill cups under supervision. And of course I was getting sicker.

It wasn’t until I was an adult and reached out to multiple specialists and psychiatrists to look at my pharmaceutical records and brain scans that I realized, watching their faces turn somber or grossed out as they went through it, when their tone changed and voice fell in volume to ask me to confirm hospital stays and names of providers that were in the system, “can you confirm an appointment with [psychiatrist] for TMS and medications?”. I finally accepted that I wasn’t crazy about it. They were gaslighting a child that they knew was already being gaslit at home. I knew what they were doing: They were trying to chemically lobotomize a child instead of helping me because I was too deviant and unlikeable; a transsexual and bisexual child who wasn’t growing out of the homosexuality despite therapy and had problems with authority, a history of long term abuse and family that normalized criminal behavior, complaints from family and school about disruptive behavior, and psychosis. A child like that is scary to society because they could grow up to be an actual transsexual who partakes in homosexuality, breaks the law, and could be a danger to others and thorn in the system’s side.

How a doctor can keep his license while viewing patients, especially children, that way is beyond me. But yeah, lobotomy isn’t something that went away that people, especially those at higher risk from doctor bias, aren’t worried about anymore or don’t have trauma with. “60 years old” maybe for reported, surgical lobotomies. But there are people younger than 18 to this day who have had parts of themselves damaged via psychiatric malpractice who don’t even know how to talk about it or to who. I don’t even understand what I lost in any way that I can put into words. I just know that I’m not the same person, and I know I lost a lot of people around then because they didn’t understand why it felt like they lost a friend/family member who was standing in the same room as them. I lost my future with school. I was further traumatized and distrustful and bitter. Every childhood disorder that I had was now a more severe, adult version that they didn’t know how to treat and overwhelmed them.

I’m traumatized. My family is traumatized from being a part of it. We already had trauma in the family from medical malpractice that lead to deaths, near deaths, permanent physical disability, and abuse of someone with an intellectual disability by hospital and school staff. I’m sure that played a role in why my parents took so long to get me psychiatrists and psychotherapy in the first place. It was painful. My family and the nurses had to pin me to the floor and force me to swallow then check my mouth with a flashlight and watch me for 30min because YEAH I wanted to throw it up or get it out of my system somehow. I felt like I was overdosing on diphenhydramine anytime they gave it to me, but they wouldn’t believe me. Thinking back and comparing it to an ER visit I’ve had, I wouldn’t be shocked to find out that I spent my middle school-high school years forced to live through mild serotonin syndrome. That and them giving me large amounts of benzodiazepines in middle school? My father’s psych encouraging them to cut his benzos in half and make me take them when I was in elementary school? Yeah, I fought back. That was basic survival instincts, not paranoia.

There isn’t anywhere to really talk about this because people immediately want to assume it’s anti-medication propaganda. They accuse people of being part of that whole “anti-conspiracy to numb everyone’s brain with psychotropic medications having to do with capitalism and state control” mentality. And that’s not what I’m talking about. And people’s lived experiences aren’t political tools unless they are specifically applying it to a political stance. Sometimes it’s just to vent about something more taboo that we’ve gone through that isn’t widely discussed or taken into account.

I think meditation is important and can be used in a way that saves or betters lives, but that doesn’t change the fact that putting heavier restrictions and medical stigma on lobotomies isn’t going to stop or change the motives of doctors who believe in permanently damaging the prefrontal cortex as a means of treatment, and they will find a way that doesn’t need any surgical tools if that’s the way they view patients. The current tools at their disposal are mainly medications, TMS, and ECT. If you use those with the intention to (fry) alter someone’s frontal lobe without consent and in a way that harms their quality of life but makes them easier for the system to deal with, that’s not too much different from attempting to do the same with surgical instruments. It’s bullshit to pretend that USA lobotomies ended when they stopped mass producing and buying the tools necessary for surgery. It’s bullshit to assume that the treatment modality stopped existing when one of the tools was taken away.

The problem with lobotomies is that it’s an entire treatment modality mindset. You can ban the Tx, but you still have doctors who were trained or allowed to view psychiatric treatment as a means to commit human rights violations and doctors who were trained under the men who performed lobotomies back in the mid 1900s. Until those doctors are held accountable, nothing will change. Lobotomies still exist both literally with metal and anesthesia and with medications used off-label, in harmful combos, at dangerous ages, and heavily. Then you have literal magnets and electricity still being applied in combination to medications.

im going to buy an absurd amount of orange juice /hj

for full context ^^^ jan says that an example that an anon tumblr user told them why /hj would be useful is the example of "I'm going to buy an absurd amount of orange juice" because it is both /j and /g but putting both would be contradictory

jan then says that this makes no sense, because the use of /hj implies that there is a joke on the amount of orange juice they are going to buy, because they find it funny enough to call it absurd. at the same time, the premise of the joke is that they are calling it absurd, when it is in reality not and instead a sensible/reasonable amount to buy, meaning it is not funny (if i interpreted it correctly). this is a paradox because it is both funny and not funny. jan has also stated they don't want to be like asked on anymore about this topic so I'm ranting about it as my first ever tumblr blog post instead

jan is much better at thinking in general than i am, and he has been stuck on this for literal years, but my insight is that both of these conclusions are true to an extent. the amount of oj can be funny, but not absurd.

i thought about this statement as a scale from

"i'm going to buy an absurd amount of oj /gen"

interpretation: absurd amounts of oj

intent: absurd amounts of oj

to "

"i'm going to buy an absurd amount of oj /j"

interpretation "im going to buy an average amount to no oj whatsoever

intent: it was still kinda funny to say so i wanted to make the joke without it having real meaning

the use of /hj lets the amount oj they are really going to buy fall somewhere between those two extremes, meaning they are going to buy more than an average amount of orange juice but the word absurd is an extremity or a "half joke": partly true in intent but not entirely accurate. in sense, they are buying a half absurd amount of orange juice. if no orange juice is a 0 and an absurd amount is a 10, they are buying a 5 (but anywhere from a 1-9 would also be a valid interpretation // we don't know the degree of the joke)

interpretation of hj statement: not actually absurd amounts

intent: still more than the average amount, falling somewhere between the two extremes

now this brings up the question of how do we know half-joking was applying to the specific use of absurd in that sentence, which has to do more with context and social cues that are probably already hard for those that tone indicators attempt to help, so i just wanted to clarify that /hj is still a pretty horrible tone indicator 9/10 times and everything said in the video is more or less correct

but assuming absurd was the butt of the joke in that statement and the use of /hj 1 (meant to be funny but holds a degree of sincerity), it would make sense.

this is still a long and winded thought process that should be better avoided through a more accurate way to convey that same tone or intent however

thank you, bye !!

tl;dr with very implicit assumptions /hj can make sense, but it is never the best option to use in any specific situation without pre-established conditions on what it means and applies to

♢  —    @gunnhildred​​​​ asked:  ❝ you can never trust a monster. ❞  But I trust you.

REPO! THE GENETIC OPERA SENTENCES

   With a face concealed beneath his usual mask, it’s hard to say PRECISE expression might be on his face. But his head tilts to the right, like a bird observing something odd, like a scientist whose found something intriguing enough to dissect beneath his eye ( and scalpel - if it wasn’t for the fact it was something VERBAL rather than PHYSICAL. )

   “  Why?  “  Dottore inquires without hesitation. Someone else might have given pause. Such a statement to not trust monsters was rather universally accepted. But Dottore was brash and bold. If he disagreed, he would say so unless something more desirable was influenced to keep him in line and his mouth shut. Here, there wasn’t that. So naturally he spoke.

   “  I disagree. I think MONSTERS are perhaps the most TRUSTWORTHY of anything.  “  It’s a counter that he doesn’t intend to hide from.  “  You know what a monster is. You can trust a monster to be a monster. Be it in the literal animalistic sense, or simply in title.  “  He lifts one hand, palm upwards to further his point.  “  You may ultimately be DISAPPOINTED at it, but in the end, if a monster proves itself to be exactly that, no one is SURPRISED by it. Am I wrong? “

   It was a shame, one day, these talks would inevitably end. He found them surprisingly enjoyable in a way he hadn’t experienced in decades. But, A MONSTER WAS A MONSTER. He was one through and through according to humanity.

   He lifts his head.  “  Monsters cannot escape their titles. They’re like scars. Even if a monster DID genuinely change, there would always be people who doubt it. Beast or person. Such is the way of the human mind. Distrustful of anything once deemed as OTHER.  “

   He watches, keen eyes CURIOUS to how she will decide to answer him.  “  I find the least trustworthy those who seem like they’ve NEVER done anything wrong.  “  He frowns slightly.  “  Well. In this hypothetic situation. More accurately I look at records and reports but, never mind that.  “  His hand waves before folding across his chest.  

   “  When THEY do something, no one expects it. For example, you wouldn’t expect for a little lamb to do anything wrong. Which makes anything they do all the more dangerous. They have people’s trust and faith, and therefore can inflict GREATER harm than a monster could, if more so psychologically than physically, again depending on context.  Think about it. If the most trustworthy, innocent person you know did something horrible, it would be more heartbreaking and shocking than if, say, a fatui member did it. They probably wouldn’t even cross your mind unless there was witnesses or evidence, right?  They can be the infection in the bloodstream so to speak.  No one suspects it till it’s too late. But if a monster is indeed a monster, well, you can trust it to be a monster."

   He allows a moment of silence in reflective thought.  “  It’s strange. As a whole, humans strive for the idea of doing no wrong and hurting no one ever. Yet, most would suspect someone or something appearing as such to simply be hiding the truth or something more sinister. But humans are rather contradictory by nature.  ”   Finally, Dottore settles with a small shrug.  “  I’d take a monster any day. Plus if it is a creature, it’s a valuable learning opportunity.  “  Even if it was a person it could be, but he kept that to himself. 

Difference between Delusion or Illusion?

The terms Delusion and Illusion are often used interchangeably but represent significantly different concepts, especially in psychological and perceptual contexts. Delusion is a false belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary, often occurring as a symptom of psychiatric disorders. Illusion, on the other hand, refers to a misperception or distorted perception of a real external stimulus. Understanding the distinction between these two is crucial for clarity in both everyday communication and professional discourse. Quick Facts Table FeatureDelusionIllusionNatureFalse belief or convictionMisperception of a real stimulusOriginPsychological, often pathologicalPerceptual, not necessarily abnormalAssociationMental health disordersNormal brain functionCorrectionDifficult, may require therapyOften corrected by additional informationExamplesBelieving one is being followed without evidenceSeeing a mirage in the desert Difference Between Delusion and Illusion Definition of Delusion A Delusion is a firmly held belief in something that is not true or based on reality, often occurring as a part of various psychiatric conditions, such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and delusional disorder. Delusions are characterized by their persistence and resistance to change, even when the evidence contradicts the belief. Definition of Illusion An Illusion is a distortion of the senses, revealing how the brain normally organizes and interprets sensory stimulation. While illusions distort reality, they are not considered indicative of mental illness. They are common and part of human perception, arising from the brain's interpretation of sensory input. Origin of Delusion The term Delusion comes from the Latin word "deludere," meaning "to mock" or "to deceive." Historically, delusions have been recognized in the context of mental illness for centuries, with early descriptions often intertwined with religious or supernatural beliefs. Origin of Illusion Illusion derives from the Latin "illusio," meaning "a mocking, irony," or "deception." Illusions have been studied since ancient times, with philosophers and scientists exploring how sensory experiences can be misleading or differ from objective reality. Pronunciation - Delusion: /dɪˈluːʒən/ - Illusion: /ɪˈluːʒən/ Comparing Delusion and Illusion Comparing Delusion and Illusion highlights their differences in nature, origin, and impact on individuals: - Nature and Origin: Delusions are psychological and often pathological, originating within the individual's mind without external stimuli. Illusions, however, stem from actual external stimuli but are misinterpreted by the brain. - Association with Disorders: Delusions are typically associated with psychiatric disorders, indicating a need for medical intervention. Illusions are a normal part of human perception and do not imply mental health issues. - Correction: Delusions are resistant to correction, even with evidence, and often require psychiatric treatment. Illusions can usually be corrected when the perceptual distortion is recognized or further information is provided. Usage in Sentences with Explanations Use of Delusion in Sentences - The patient's belief that he could control the weather was identified as a Delusion. - Indicates a belief clearly disconnected from reality, typical of a delusional disorder. - Her Delusion of grandeur made her believe she was a famous celebrity. - Highlights a common type of delusion where the individual has an inflated sense of self-importance. - Treating Delusions often involves a combination of medication and psychotherapy. - Reflects the complexity and resilience of delusions to simple corrections. - Despite clear evidence of his company's failure, he maintained the Delusion that it was highly successful. - Shows how delusions can persist in the face of contradictory facts. - Family members struggled to understand his Delusion that they were impostors. - Describes a specific delusion known as Capgras syndrome, indicating the diversity of delusional beliefs. Use of Illusion in Sentences - The oasis appeared as a mirage, an Illusion created by hot air. - Demonstrates an optical illusion caused by environmental conditions. - Magic tricks often rely on creating Illusions to astonish the audience. - Highlights the use of illusions in entertainment to manipulate perception. - The Illusion of the bent pencil in water is a simple demonstration of light refraction. - Explains a common illusion that results from the physical properties of light. - Artists use perspective to create the Illusion of depth on a flat canvas. - Shows how illusions can be intentionally used in art to mimic three-dimensional space. - Virtual reality technology creates convincing Illusions of being in a different place. - Illustrates the application of illusions in modern technology to enhance experiences. Conclusion Understanding the distinction between a Delusion and an Illusion is fundamental in distinguishing between the psychological phenomena related to false beliefs and the perceptual distortions experienced in response to real stimuli. Delusions reflect deeper psychological issues requiring professional intervention, while Illusions are a normal part of human perception that can often be fascinating insights into how our senses interpret the world around us. Commonly Asked Questions - Can Illusions lead to Delusions? - Typically, no. Illusions are normal perceptual processes, while Delusions are false beliefs that arise independently of sensory input and are associated with psychiatric conditions. - How do you correct a Delusion? - Correcting a Delusion often requires professional psychiatric treatment, including medication and therapy, due to the complex nature of delusional beliefs. - Are Illusions considered a sign of mental illness? - No, experiencing Illusions is part of normal human perception and not indicative of mental illness. - What are common types of Delusions? - Common types include delusions of persecution, grandeur, jealousy, and somatic delusions, among others. - Can everyone experience Illusions? - Yes, most people can experience Illusions as they are a result of how the brain interprets sensory information, which is a universal aspect of human perception. FAQ What is the difference between delusion and illusion? In psychology and perception, an illusion refers to something that appears different from reality due to sensory tricks or misperceptions. On the other hand, a delusion is a firmly held false belief that is not in line with reality. How can an illusion be defined? An illusion can refer to something that is not true or real but is believed to be true by someone. It can also describe an object, concept, or image that appears different from what it actually is. In literature, illusions are often used to create a sense of deception or misinterpretation. In psychology, illusions play a significant role in the study of perception and cognitive processes. What defines a delusion? A delusion is a false belief that is held with absolute conviction, even when faced with contradictory evidence. It is a mental state characterized by maintaining a belief that is clearly inconsistent with reality. Delusions are commonly associated with psychiatric disorders like schizophrenia or delusional disorder. Read the full article

rant 25/01

i read recently a phrase that made me think. “You take pride in the fact that you can endure suffering”

in the context of the text, this was told to a person with very low self esteem and for a moment i saw it as just a surface statement, but thinking about it later i realised that it’s probably true for me as well.

TW / mentions of self harm and self harming thoughts

i stopped self harming (actively) years ago. almost five now i think. but i slowly forgot all the little ways someone can harm oneself. that no matter how much i starved myself, or kept working with my hands under boiling water, or even attempted smoking when i was down, i always seemed to bounce back.

the lack of motivation to take care of ones self is very strange i think. i value my teeth a lot but i dont always brush my teeth. i want my skin to be clear but i always pick on it and go days without washing my face. sometimes i wonder if those are all acts of someone so spoiled that just wants things done with no effort. or if it’s because i want those things to seem appealing to other people but cant seem to put the proper effort cause i dont think im worth it.

my therapist asked me last time why i hate myself. its been two weeks and i still have no answer. why does one hate themselves?

i could say because of my mistakes, losing people or lying but honestly none of those things seem important enough to be the answer to “why do you hate yourself”. its the contradictory nature of my temperament that really clicks (not) everything into place. being vain but not, thinking im better but not. does and donts, be and not be. im always caught in an endless loop.

so, when i read that sentence, i thought about my life. i have no reason to live. havent found one for a while now. i guess i do take a bit of pride in my endurance because even after all of this i am still alive. with no purpose and very little motivation somehow im still here.

and yet i dont know if thats strength or cowardice.

i wont lie, i am scared of death. generally not a fan of things ending. the idea of dying is sweet but i just about come short of the execution. like there is an invisible line there, a limit to how much damage i can cause myself.

but i didn’t put that there.

i dont know what it is, or why it is, but it doesnt feel like my own. something is keeping me alive and i am curious to know what that is, because really if it were up to me i would be dead. or would i?

im starting to think that i dont know myself at all.

and it makes me wonder, is it possible for someone else to know me then?

(feel free to add your own thoughts and opinions under this post)

Reviewing the professionalism of Denny Ja’s best

Welcome to this interesting article! This time, we will discuss the latest work produced by a famous Indonesian writer, Denny Ja, in the context of his 51st birthday celebration. This latest work is titled “Poetry of Muslim Boy on Christmas”.    Denny JA, known as a social writer and activist, has offered an extraordinary work for years. In this latest work, he tried to combine the theme of Christmas with the perspective of a Muslim boy. With a distinctive professionalism, Denny JA managed to convey a deep message through beautiful poetry in his work.    First, we can see Denny JA’s expertise in choosing an interesting title. “Poetry of Muslim children on Christmas” gives an idea that this work will describe a unique and fresh perspective on Christmas celebrations. In the title, he combined two ideas that might seem contradictory to create interest for the readers.    When we enter the contents of this work, we are presented with beautiful poetry that enriches the reading experience. Denny Ja carefully chose words that provide a clear and deep picture. Through every verse of poetry, we can feel the innocence and joy of a Muslim boy in facing the Christmas celebration.    One of the interesting poems in this work is “Christmas Light in the Heart”. This poem illustrates how important the light of Christmas in bringing peace and joy to everyone, regardless of religion or belief. Denny Ja is adept at conveying the message of inclusiveness and togetherness through a simple but meaningful words.    In addition, Denny Ja also succeeded in displaying cultural and religious differences in harmony in the poetry of his work. In the poem “Muslim Boy under a Christmas tree”, he explained how a Muslim boy can feel the beauty of the Christmas celebration without forgetting his own identity and belief. Through this poem, Denny Ja teaches the values of tolerance and mutual respect between religious believers.    The work in “Muslim Poetry of Muslims on Christmas” also invites us to see Christmas from a deeper perspective. In the poem “Christmas Morning Behind the Window”, Denny Ja describes the beauty and wonders of Christmas that are seen through the eyes of a boy who is full of admiration. Poetry like this reminds us to appreciate the small moment of life in life and see the beauty around us.    In this whole work, Denny Ja succeeded in creating an atmosphere that vibrated the readers’ feelings. He combines a beautiful sentence with a deep meaning so that it can bring a living picture in the mind of the reader. This poet will make us laugh, moved, and reflect at the same time.    As an experienced writer, Denny Ja is also able to process language well. He uses simple but meaningful language, so that this work can be enjoyed by various readers. The beauty of the language used in poetry will make us swept away and deepen the understanding of the message to be conveyed.    Thus, Denny Ja’s latest work, “Muslim boys’ poetry on Christmas”, is a work that should be appreciated.

Check in full: review with the professionalism of Denny Ja’s best

25 Words That Are Their Own Opposites Stumble into the looking-glass world of contronyms.

Mental Floss Judith Herman

Here’s an ambiguous sentence for you: “Because of the agency’s oversight, the corporation’s behavior was sanctioned.” Does that mean, "Because the agency oversaw the company’s behavior, they imposed a penalty for some transgression," or does it mean, "Because the agency was inattentive, they overlooked the misbehavior and gave it their approval by default"? We’ve stumbled into the looking-glass world of contronyms—words that are their own antonyms.

1. Sanction (via French, from Latin sanctio(n-), from sancire ‘ratify,’) can mean "give official permission or approval for (an action)" or conversely, "impose a penalty on."

2. Oversight is the noun form of two verbs with contrary meanings, “oversee” and “overlook.” Oversee, from Old English ofersēon ("look at from above") means "supervise" (medieval Latin for the same thing: super-, "over" plus videre, "to see.") Overlook usually means the opposite: "to fail to see or observe; to pass over without noticing; to disregard, ignore."

3. Left can mean either remaining or departed. If the gentlemen have withdrawn to the drawing room for after-dinner cigars, who’s left? (The gentlemen have left and the ladies are left.)

4. Dust, along with the next two words, is a noun turned into a verb meaning either to add or to remove the thing in question. Only the context will tell you which it is. When you dust are you applying dust or removing it? It depends whether you’re dusting the crops or the furniture.

5. Seed can also go either way. If you seed the lawn you add seeds, but if you seed a tomato you remove them.

6. Stone is another verb to use with caution. You can stone some peaches, but please don’t stone your neighbor (even if he says he likes to get stoned).

7. Trim as a verb predates the noun, but it can also mean either adding or taking away. Arising from an Old English word meaning "to make firm or strong; to settle, arrange," trim came to mean "to prepare, make ready." Depending on who or what was being readied, it could mean either of two contradictory things: "to decorate something with ribbons, laces, or the like to give it a finished appearance" or "to cut off the outgrowths or irregularities of." And the context doesn’t always make it clear. If you’re trimming the tree are you using tinsel or a chain saw?

8. Cleave can be cleaved into two homographs, words with different origins that end up spelled the same. Cleave, meaning "to cling to or adhere," comes from an Old English word that took the forms cleofian, clifian, or clīfan. Cleave, with the contrary meaning "to split or sever (something)"—as you might do with a cleaver—comes from a different Old English word, clēofan. The past participle has taken various forms: cloven, which survives in the phrase “cloven hoof,” “cleft,” as in a “cleft palate” or “cleaved.”

9. Resign works as a contronym in writing. This time we have homographs, but not homophones. Resign, meaning "to quit," is spelled the same as resign, meaning "to sign up again," but it’s pronounced differently.

10. Fast can mean "moving rapidly," as in running fast, or "fixed, unmoving," as in holding fast. If colors are fast they will not run. The meaning "firm, steadfast" came first; the adverb took on the sense "strongly, vigorously," which evolved into "quickly," a meaning that spread to the adjective.

11. Off means "deactivated," as in to turn off, but also "activated," as in the alarm went off.

12. Weather can mean "to withstand or come safely through" (as in the company weathered the recession) or it can mean "to be worn away" (the rock was weathered).

13. Screen can mean to show (a movie) or to hide (an unsightly view).

14. Help means "assist," unless you can’t help doing something, when it means "prevent."

15. Clip can mean "to bind together" or "to separate." You clip sheets of paper to together or separate part of a page by clipping something out. Clip is a pair of homographs, words with different origins spelled the same. Old English clyppan, which means "to clasp with the arms, embrace, hug," led to our current meaning, "to hold together with a clasp." The other clip, "to cut or snip (a part) away," is from Old Norse klippa, which may come from the sound of a shears.

16. Continue usually means to persist in doing something, but as a legal term it means stop a proceeding temporarily.

17. Fight with can be interpreted three ways. “He fought with his mother-in-law” could mean "They argued," "They served together in the war," or "He used the old battle-ax as a weapon." (Thanks to linguistics professor Robert Hertz for this idea.)

18. Flog, meaning "to punish by caning or whipping," shows up in school slang of the 17th century, but now it can have the contrary meaning, "to promote persistently," as in “flogging a new book.” Perhaps that meaning arose from the sense "to urge (a horse, etc.) forward by whipping," which grew out of the earliest meaning.

19. Go means "to proceed," but also "give out or fail," i.e., “This car could really go until it started to go.”

20. Hold up can mean "to support" or "to hinder": “What a friend! When I’m struggling to get on my feet, he’s always there to hold me up.”

21. Out can mean "visible" or "invisible." For example, “It’s a good thing the full moon was out when the lights went out.”

22. Out of means "outside" or "inside": “I hardly get out of the house because I work out of my home.”

23. B**ch can derisively refer to a woman who is considered overly aggressive or domineering, or it can refer to someone passive or submissive.

24. Peer is a person of equal status (as in a jury of one’s peers), but some peers are more equal than others, like the members of the peerage, the British or Irish nobility.

25. Toss out could be either "to suggest" or "to discard": “I decided to toss out the idea.”

The contronym (also spelled “contranym”) goes by many names, including auto-antonym, antagonym, enantiodrome, self-antonym, antilogy and Janus word (from the Roman god of beginnings and endings, often depicted with two faces looking in opposite directions). Can’t get enough of them? The folks at Daily Writing Tips have rounded up even more.

= https://getpocket.com/explore/item/25-words-that-are-their-own-opposites?utm_source=pocket-newtab

More Stories from Pocket

Lydia Davis: Advice on Language, Writing From Reality, and More

Here’s How to Remove Paint from Clothes

How Non-English Speakers Learn This Crazy Grammar Rule You Know But Never Heard Of

The World’s Most Efficient Languages

Six Verbs That Make You Sound Weak (No Matter Your Job Title)

More from Mental Floss

Why Do People Say "Jesus H. Christ," and Where Did the "H" Come From?

30 Hilarious German Insults You Should Start Using Immediately

If You Can Correctly Pronounce Every Word in This 1920s Poem, You’re Among the English-Speaking Elite

hello! I was just wondering how sentence mining works? Like how do you pick the sentences? and how does it help rather than just using flashcards for the words you don't know?

Hi! Sentence mining works in a similar way to vocabulary cards, but this time instead of just having the unknown word on front and meaning on the back of the flashcard, you have the sentence that you took from your immersion on the front of the card and the target word and meaning at the back instead.

To make a sentence card, you simply take the entire sentence from the media you've been immersing in, making sure that you understand every word and grammar point except for the singular word that you don't know and paste it on the front of your flashcard, and of course, add the meaning at the back of the card.

The difference with sentence cards is that it gives you more context like how the word was used in relation to the particle or the grammar point. I found that it was a good starting card type for beginners because of this reason.

It is also useful for words with multiple meanings. Take for example the word 掛ける. This screenshot is just three portions of a sixteen part definition for a commonly used word.

If you learned a single definition, say for example "to hang up", and didn't learn that you can also use it "to put on" or "to spend" among multiple other usages, the moment you encounter it being used in a different situation might cause confusion. So learning a word - even the "same" word - using sentence cards where you are given a particular sentence from your immersion saves you from missing out on really understanding the word usage.

There are a few issues that I've encountered with sentence cards though:

Long review time - you have to read the entire sentence every single time to get to the target word. Imagine having 200+ reviews a day - it was impossible for me to keep my reviews under an hour on top of 20 new cards. I would suggest to grab short sentences because of this, while making sure that you don't lose the context;

Too much context - yes, that's right, it's pretty contradictory, but my personal experience is that given I've reviewed the same card enough times, chances are I've already memorized the beginning of the sentence and now able to guess what the target word is without reading and recognizing the shape of the kanji. You can imagine how rough it was when I realized I had been passing a good chunk of my cards which I barely even recognized, which brings me to;

Information overload - reading the target word in such a specific context while also reading a bunch of other (potentially young) words in the same sentence gets extremely overwhelming when you start accumulating cards; and lastly (I think?)

Can't mine and review sentences with multiple unknown words because #3. I mean you can, but it's hard to manually sift through a lot of cards in a backlog (if you keep one), so you gotta hope to see that cool word again in a single unknown word sentence situation in your immersion which means that you have to immerse a lot more.

However, if you're like me, you could just have the best of both worlds and create your own hybrid flashcard with both unknown word and sentence in front and on the back the meaning plus extra context like pictures, pitch accent graphs, and word audio, and in a perfect world, sentence audio.

Here's a simple example of such a card from my collection which I am able to get with just a few clicks. Once again, linking this wonderful Anki and Yomichan Setup tutorial for your reference. Missed out on the beautiful and clean pitch accent graph from Yomichan on this one so had to use the Japanese Pitch Accent Addon for Anki, but it works the same way. Tbh, the dictionary also already comes with the pitch accent pattern, too, so it hardly matters either way.

Hope this was a thorough explanation of what sentence cards are.

TL;DR: recommended for beginners learning grammar and particles, but immediate learners with significant kanji knowledge might benefit more from vocabulary cards or hybrid vocab/sentence cards as it is probably the faster option to review. Always pick more immersion time over Anki and reviews.

Great things star stable did on the tours:

-jokes

-references

-the legend that the demascus mines were originally named the Damascus mines to trick jon jarl, who wanted Damascus steel for his weapons and was apparently too clueless to realize Damascus steel (like all steel) is made, not mined, and it wasn’t made outside of Asia

-the image provided by the story of Gunnar Thrymson lying to the Jarl about this

-sick burn of jack goldspur

Horrible things star stable did on the tours:

-making me visit the jarl’s tomb

-changing game lore once again, only this time it’s all the established history of Jorvik that they’re flouting

-like literally despite mentioning the four chambers in the Jarl’s tomb during the tour, all the information given in the quests that lead to opening two of them is completely disregarded

-new information is either contradictory in itself, immediately followed by contradictory information, or just generally spoiled by aforementioned contradictions casting doubt on all tour information

-amusement at the demascus mine story immediately followed by realization that the canonicity of galloper’s real name is in doubt now more than ever

-compensating for the mislabeling of jon jarl as a Viking by making him the “first king of modern Jorvik” instead of the “discoverer” of Jorvik

-moving the first Scandinavian settler arrivals from the 13th century to the 11th century, and then referring to the settlers as Vikings despite the Viking age ending in the mid 11th century, casting doubt on the claim that these settlers were Vikings, and ultimately fixing nothing about the original mistake

-acting as though jon jarl was descended from the original Viking settlers, then in the same breath claiming he was the one to wreak havoc on Jorvik (despite Vikings being infamous for being shitty people?? Why would they wait around for 200 years before brutally taking over?)

-literally, LITERALLY this information was worked with two weeks ago with the quiz trails; “what year did jon jarl arrive on Jorvik?” had the answer “1218”

-why the hell did you decide to do this star stable??? When I said “the lore changes with each weekly update” I was joking. It was not an invitation to prove me right or a suggestion to legitimately start changing the lore each week

-no substantial information is given on these first “Viking” settlers of Jorvik

-Conrad slander, calling him crusty and stubborn

-referring to Jarlaheim as the jarl’s palace and the old capital city within 2 sentences, possibly in an attempt to remedy the jarl’s missing castle situation, while also trying to preserve the established history of Jarlaheim as “the walled city”

-claiming jon jarl was a king despite his title being jarl, and not specifying if or when his title changed from jarl to king and why he is still known as Jon Jarl (no seriously do they think “Jarl” is his last name instead of his title?)

-slandering Governor Gareth without context when context is sorely needed, since the claims made on the tour disregard the backstory they gave him (which was presented as objective fact, and established during quests referenced in the very same tour where they slander him)

-if marchenghast castle was not built by jorvegian royalty, why is the road to it (still) named “old king’s road”?

-the part about Aideen’s whisper requiring a journey to pi’s “backyard” where the pandoric crack was, instead of the canyon itself? Why?

-mention of ydris but no slander of him? shameful

-attempting to mix game lore and the game’s history; commendable effort, but in a tour that seeks to destroy the game lore, muddying the waters isn’t helping. The good-time-ruining content of the tours kills any joy I might’ve felt

-feeble attempt at explaining the pass to wildwoods being out in the open; confirming it was used in the past, which destroys the idea presented in the wildwoods quests of the pass being secret and hidden; again not fixing the original problem at all, and in fact creating more problems (hmm..I’m sensing a pattern)

-making me wish I worked at this company solely to fix all of this

-no galloper mention despite bringing up the living pumpkins from the halloween event (come on, his legend is part of the history of goldenhills. Or is that in doubt now too)

-making me grateful for no galloper mention by making these tours so awful

-placing historical dates relating to Jon Jarl and Galloper Thompson in doubt

-placing these dates further in doubt with the proclamation that Jorvik Stables’ first stablemaster was appointed 700 years ago, when all other information suggests it was closer to 800 years

-giving me hope that maybe the 700 years is used because it’s not quite 800 years yet, and the old information is still in play [edit: it did say “over 700 years ago”, not just “700 years ago”, but my point still stands]

-mentioning Linda, bringing her good name into this shitshow

-creating an environment so filled with casual disregard of established concepts that I was willing to accept saying Steve’s barn was yellow as just another falsehood presented as fact

-immediately crushing my spirit with the addition of “wait it’s red now?”, practically confirming my suspicion that all this was intentional and not a mistake

-referring to the southsilver waters as a “river”, instead of using the correct term: strait

-making me seriously consider sending a strongly worded email to star stable about this whole thing

I was gonna be a dick and send in big c for the ask game (and I get it, I hate him too), but actually. Can I get your opinion on the Pharsalia? What is it you like so much?

OHHHHHH the pharsalia...... my beloved...... it just has everything i love in one poem! like it is about the crisis of the roman republic it's an epic poem it's a fucked UP epic poem that can't really be isolated from other parts of the epic 'canon' bcs part of the Vibes come from its divergences from them.... it's got ghosts and necromancy and fate being real but the source of that fate is history already having happened and the author's (unwanted!) knowledge of the disastrous future rather than like. divine machinery. it's got WEIRD syntax where you kind of have to hold the broken parts of sentences together in your mind like YEA the universe machine broke and that broke the very fabric of the poem like WHAT an choice to make. as a poet. it also just has such a distinct way of writing abt violence particularly in war like i think ive posted a quote abt people being reduced to either weapons or wounds? which makes Me think abt the poetry of wilfred owen where people are dehumanised while the Machines of war are personified...... wilfred owen has been one of my favourite poets since like 2013 so anything similar Will make me Lose It. ALSO the syntax needing the reader to constantly hold it together applies to the poem as a whole too like it's deliberately contradictory it hates both sides of the civil war but the narrator wants desperately to believe in pompey but his narration clearly Doesn't and he wants to despise caesar but the narration is like. fascinated by him and his Demonic Energy. in an evil way. i fully support bartsch's takes from ideology in cold blood abt the narrator wanting himself and You The Reader to fix the political Schism by believing not in one side's ideology but in the ideology of believing in anything at all. it's sexy and weird the poem is like hashtag his countenance was a civil war itself. also the poem is literally a headless corpse. it's an empty tomb that WOULD contain cato the younger if lucan had got to his death before dying himself. (speaking of which the poem IN the context of lucan's actual life and particularly death? insane. thematic even). also cato the younger! i know this is catilinas dot tumblr dot hell but cato the younger is actually one of my favourite historical figures of all time he sucked and was awful and i enjoy it. and lucan's takes on cato are Very fun also when he has to not get killed by Many Snakes. epic. ALSO as much as lots of the coolness of lucan comes from his interactions w other texts he does often do stuff that is deeply weird and? maybe new? like what's up with the WOMEN alison keith says in her book on women in latin epic "no latin epic is complete without the death agony of a woman" but. professor keith please explain where the woman who dies in lucan IS. julia? who is a ghost? bcs imo if you die before the plot starts and Then come back as a ghost that is the Opposite of a woman dying in epic. that\'s a woman coming back to life/undeath. or like w phemonoe the narrative hypes up oooooooo every pythia who does a prophecy immediately dies! she doesnt want to do the prophecy bcs she will immediately die! and then she DOES do the prophecy and...... doesn't die? like she falls over but then she gets back up? what does it MEAN? (i know what it means this was my undergrad d*ssertation.) like yes every female character in lucan (except maaaaybe cleopatra) is deeply associated w death....... but they are all not even just alive. like unkillable. it's weird and cool! or like lucan does ye olde trope of Marriage To Death but he makes it WEIRD. he's like no the women do not marry death. they ARE death. which puts their husbands in the usually female role of Being Married To Death. what does tHAT mean? polla argentaria if you are out there i would like to discuss any edits you may have made to the pharsalia after your husband's death,

omg yes make a post about god (the song)

Hi anon! Here we go:

Thoughts on God by John Lennon

So my first thought, which I mentioned in my music live blogging post, is that the sentence "God is a concept by which we measure our pain" is worded in a very complicated way that is hard to understand and it's odd to hear John simply repeat it, in lieu of elaborating on this idea he's presenting. Ironically, this gives the line an effect of preachiness, reminiscent of some mantra or prayer, chanted without much thought given to the actual words.

Something that additionally irks me here, is the fact that he even says "Let me say it again" draws a lot of attention to himself as the narrator. Which is odd, given the fact that, with this song, he's, among other things, trying to demistify his own role as an idol in people's lives.

This is sort of the crux of my issue with the song; he's proclaiming himself as Not A Hero but there's this underlying feeling that he wants me to think the opposite. Why refer to yourself as the "dream weaver"? Who gives him the authority to proclaim that the "dream" is over? The song, to me, feels like it first has to set up a narrative of The Beatles/John Lennon As Saviours to even be able to deconstruct it.

I think a part of what alienates me from this song is the fact that I did not live through the 60s or witness Beatlemania. When I listen to it, I hear the words of someone I've long known to be a broken, deeply-flawed human. So for him to be proclaiming himself decidedly not an idol feels a bit "What's next, Captain Obvious?" to me, but I see how it may not have been at the time.

That being said, I skimmed a bit of Lennon Remembers (which came out nearly simultaneously with the album) again and found a few quotes in it that feel deeply contradictory to the song's purpose.

I mean to sell as many albums as I can, because I’m an artist who wants everybody to love me, and everybody to buy my stuff.

Well, I say fuck ’em, you know, and after working with genius [sic] for ten, 15 years they begin to think they’re it. They’re not.

Do you think you’re a genius?

Yes, if there is such a thing as one, I am one.

In the first quote he seems to still be very much enamoured with being a beloved celebrity and in the second he proudly proclaims himself as a "genius", some type of special person with heightened wisdom.

It kind of feels like he was trying to have his cake and eat it too, claiming idolatry to be useless, yet still wanting to be listened to and loved by the masses. It gives me the impression the only purpose of this song was to close the book on the Beatles. But painting a band, a group of people making music together, as a "dream" that can be ended and that one must "carry on" from, is in itself an act of mystifying them, if that makes sense?

There's something weirdly metaphorical about him using the title "walrus" here in such a serious fashion, when the two Beatles songs "the walrus" appeared in are largely tongue-in-cheek and according to John not to be taken especially seriously. Suddenly, in light of the band's disintegration, the word "walrus" is given a meaning and weight it never had when the band was together, and that feels deeply odd to me.

Does that make sense? If you have any additional thoughts or disagree with me I'd love to hear them :)

EDIT: I showed this post to a friend of mine who only has secondhand Beatles/John knowledge from me and had listened to the song once. He felt the song is actually just John proclaiming that he personally has lost faith in some older version of himself as well as various idols, without trying to actually demystify himself. I can see that POV but it's just really not the vibe I get, due to the preachy undertone of the song and with the full context of the type of things he would say around that time. But if that's someone's reading it is understandable.